|
Pat, my own vote goes strongly to "type" (if
I may emerge albeit perhaps incongruously from my lurking state on this
list).
Im my own work, which I hope to release to this list and the
widest user community at a more appropriate time, I have for many years
consistently and insistently used "type" to denote the intensional sense.
"Class", it seems to me (as to John Sowa), invites confusion with the
extensional sense.
Cory (Hello again Cory!), copied below, correctly
observes a rather dominant current of practice in this connection. But I
would suggest that that usage has been unduly influenced by Object Orientation
in its programming manifestation, which most obviously deals with the
individuals, making "class" sit more comfortably with that OO user
community.
The closer equivalent in our world to that OO-programming
situation is to narrow down the intensional or explicitly generic sense using
contextual qualifications until we arrive at a far more specific subtype (such
as "Customer of my product-line in my realtime") which does indeed more
obviously and validly focus on a specific subset of individuals. But let
us not by our nomenclature invite a sidelining of the benefits of the whole
intensional or "meta-" approach by such slides towards the extensional sense,
perfectly relevant and everyday though they may be.
Having said
that, I would however agree with Cory that we should try to conform as far
as possible with what seems like colloquial use. But I think that
that rather argues in favour of "type", as it is (to me at least...) more
colloquially intensional than "class"!
I mention that
because both Chris Menzel and Leo Obrst have warned us against using "type"
because of all the uses of that word in various formal systems. I would
strongly urge us, however, not to be so influenced by such perhaps confusing
formal uses: the inventors of formal systems are endlessly inventive in
their specialized uses of colloquial words. (The use of "institution" in
category theory comes to mind as an extreme yet here relevant example.
Nice though that specialization is, the sociologists continue to use
the term in their own also specialized yet far more colloquial sense, and
without any confusion by the CT usage.)
All IM(not so)HO.
Christopher
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, 20 January, 2006 15:54
Subject: RE: [ontac-dev] Type vs. Class -- Please
vote
Pat,
As stated, I have a preference for "type" - it is, to me, less
confused. BUT, there may be a more important factor and one that implies a
prior commitment - the semantic web.
The semantic web (Essentially RDF)
and to a lesser but still significant extent OWL is a major factor in the
industry. It is the leading factor that is making Ontologies more
mainstream. If there is any question that there will, at least, be an OWL
view of COSOMO then I am on the wrong list as my concern is doing things that
will be used and have an impact (in my lifetime).
I recognize the limits
of OWL and the somewhat low opinion of it held by sophisticated logicians such
as are contributing to this list, and as I have learned more I have started to
share that opinion. But, broad acceptance of COSMO will be a social and
economic phenomena, not a logical one.
In addition, there are some
features of the semantic web that would be of great benefit - it is the only
logical system that I know of that that provides an infrastructure for widely
distributed and federated ontologies. These capabilities could be applied
to the semantics of CL just as well as they apply to OWL.
Given a
lattice/modular approach there can be mechanisms for having an OWL view with
"modules" that depend on more sophisticated logics. If so, we can have the
best of both. If we adopt the axiomatically slim core John suggests, it
could be expressed in OWL.
So perhaps it is important to understand how
COSMO will be part of the semantic web and in doing so not impose the confusion
of an arbitrarily different terminology. This would suggest "class" and
the other OWL terms be used where possible and that we not conflict with that
terminology. Therefore, reluctantly, that is my vote.
-Cory
Casanave
-----Original Message-----
From: ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Cassidy, Patrick
J.
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 2:45 AM
To: ONTAC Taxonomy-Ontology
Development Discussion
Subject: [ontac-dev] Type vs. Class -- Please
vote
I would like to get a sense of this group on a terminological
question.
If you have any preference at all, please send me a note
directly.
The question was raised regarding what the ONTACWG community
should
call those intensionally-defined groupings called:
Class
in Ontolingua and Protege
Class in RDF and OWL
Class in
SUMO
Collection in OpenCyc
Universal in DOLCE
Property in Ontology Works' IODE
system
---------------
The only contenders put forward
are:
Type
Class
if "type"
then the subsumption relation will be subtype
if "class"
then the subsumption relation will be subclass
There have been a few
expressions of support for each alternative.
It looks like time to resolve
the question by vote.
Unless you want to express some opinion
regarding this to the list, it
will be best to send me the reply directly to
avoid overloading.
Pat
Patrick Cassidy
MITRE
Corporation
260 Industrial Way
Eatontown, NJ 07724
Mail Stop:
MNJE
Phone: 732-578-6340
Cell: 908-565-4053
Fax: 732-578-6012
Email:
pcassidy@xxxxxxxxx
_________________________________________________________________
Message
Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-dev/
To Post: mailto:ontac-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-dev/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG
_________________________________________________________________
Message
Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-dev/
To Post: mailto:ontac-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-dev/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki: http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG
|